Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Javier Saenz-Gomez, 472 F.3d 791, 10th Cir. (2007)
United States v. Javier Saenz-Gomez, 472 F.3d 791, 10th Cir. (2007)
3d 791
I.
2
The presentence report ("PSR") indicated that the base level for Saenz-Gomez's
offense was eight. See U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(a). Twelve levels were added, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), because Saenz-Gomez was previously deported
"after a conviction for a felony drug trafficking offense for which the sentence
imposed was 13 months or less." U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). The PSR noted
that the relevant conviction was Saenz-Gomez's April 23, 2003, state felony
conviction for heroin trafficking. Three levels were subtracted for acceptance of
responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of seventeen. U.S.S.G. 3E1.1.
At sentencing, Saenz-Gomez objected to the PSR's application of the twelvelevel enhancement, arguing that his April 23, 2003, state conviction was not
final at the time of his removal and therefore not a conviction within the
meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b) or U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, because he was deported
prior to exercising his right to a direct appeal on that conviction. The district
court accepted the twelve-level increase and determined that Saenz-Gomez's
offense level was seventeen, with a criminal history category of III, indicating a
guideline range of thirty to thirty-seven (30-37) months. The district court
sentenced Saenz-Gomez to thirty months. Saenz-Gomez filed a timely notice of
appeal.
II.
On appeal, Saenz-Gomez argues that the district court improperly applied the
twelve-level enhancement to his sentence because his 2003 state conviction for
heroin trafficking was not final at the time of his removal, and therefore is not a
conviction within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b) or U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)
(B). Specifically, he contends that for a conviction to serve as the basis for
deportation, that conviction must be final and a conviction is not final for
immigration purposes before direct appeal has been exhausted or waived.
Therefore, a judgment does not become a conviction within the meaning of 8
U.S.C. 1326(b) and U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) until the direct appeal process
has been exhausted or waived. Because he was deported before his direct
appeal process had been exhausted or waived, he has no "conviction prior to
removal" to serve as the basis for the sentencing enhancement applied by the
district court. The government argues that the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA") eliminated the finality
requirement for an alien's conviction, as codified in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A).
This court has looked to 8 U.S.C. 1101, a definition section within the same
chapter as 1326, to interpret the meaning of terms within 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)
11
(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of
guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of
guilt, and
12
(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the
alien's liberty to be imposed. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A) (emphasis added).
13
14
The state court filed a written judgment and sentence on April 23, 2003,
memorializing Saenz-Gomez's felony drug trafficking conviction. "The term
`conviction' means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the
alien entered by a court." 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A) (emphasis added). The
state court's written judgment and sentence filed on April 23, 2003, falls
squarely within this statutory language and therefore qualifies as a conviction
under 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). Because SaenzGomez was deported on May 2, 2003, nine days after a formal judgment of
guilt was entered against him by the court, he was "removed subsequent to a
conviction for commission of an aggravated felony" and "after a conviction for
a felony drug trafficking offense." 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2); U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)
(1)(B).
15
Because the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A) is clear and does not
lead to an irrational result, the statutory language controls and the written
judgment filed against Saenz-Gomez is a conviction for purposes of Section
1326(b) and U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Further, because Saenz-Gomez was removed after
his conviction for a felony drug trafficking offense, the district court properly
applied the twelve-level enhancement provided in U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B).
III.
17
Notes:
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appealSee Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is, therefore, ordered submitted without oral argument.